THE ASYLUM - Emilie Autumn's Official Forum

I love peta2 and I love EA. <3 Loved the interview too. She's so right about how it makes no sense to eat pigs and chickens but not your dog or cat. Where did we cross that line!? Pigs can be just as loyal as a dog and are pretty smart!

_________________
- Visit my Art Blog! :) -

I'm glad the "plague is spreading" so to speak....But I know this could be considered an unpopular opinion, but I do not support peta, or peta2. They kill more animals than any other "humane" organization, if you do your research @___@

_________________
"We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission." George Orwell

Agreed.

Plus I don't approve of their ways of dealing with things. Like throwing red paint on people (happened here at least, people bought furs from this one store, PETA peeps threw red paint on them), general vandalism and other things alike I'm too tired to mention here. Their basic idea is good, how they do it is not.

_________________

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/




Promoting animal rights is wonderful. Just gotta be careful who you associate yourself with.

Agreed. I think animals rights is a fantastic thing to support, and I love animals more than I do most people. But any time a group goes in the direction of being an "extremist" group, I tend to stay away from them. Not to mention they're doing more harm than good.


But seriously, those statistics are sickening.

_________________
"We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission." George Orwell

PETA members aren't supposed to be doing that, and anyone who does it is usually not associated with PETA. It's a common misconception. Animal rights activists began doing that in the 1970's and PETA was not founded until the 1980's. It's a misconception because they happen to be extreme in their tactics. That being said, PETA has had several successes with their campaigns that people tend to overlook because bad rep makes news.

Also the people who were arrested for the illegal disposal of humanely killed animals were also fired from PETA. I don't believe in blaming an entire organization for some bad employees. But they do support euthanasia for the reason of not letting animals suffer. I won't disagree that it seems they went overboard with that, but I won't blame the entire organization for it because their hearts are in the right place and they've done so much already. They were the first organization to bring attention the true horrors behind animal testing that no one was ever aware of, for example.

On the note of that, at least the animals were not brutally murdered... that would be more hypocritical if anything. If you look at their campaigns, you see they only ask for humane killings when animals need to be killed rather than the inhumane ways of slaughter that animals often suffer for the meat industry.

That being said, I support PETA for promoting vegan/vegetarian lifestyles, protesting the meat and fur industries, promoting cruelty-free products and bringing to light the suffering animals experience in entertainment. What I do NOT support though is the ruckus they made about Obama swatting a fly, the extremist members who go too far and the way they spend so much money on advertising. It's a love/hate relationship. But what people fail to realize is that the Humane Society of the United States is the exact same thing as PETA, just with a suit and tie. Because of that, they don't get much slack because they're never in the spotlight.

_________________
- Visit my Art Blog! :) -

I have no problem with other people supporting it, although I do not.






You say they have fired the people doing illegal disposing of euthenized animals, but that doesn't explain how the high volume of dead animals GOT THERE. Their numbers are consistently high in terms of euthenization from year to year. To be honest, I know 97% of those animals were not sick and needed a mercy killing. They just do not have the facilities to house the volume of animals coming to them, so rather than use the millions of dollars coming in from celebrities for housing facilities for unadopted animals, they kill them and use all of that money for advertising. It just seems REALLY fishy to me. I am personally for "no kill" organizations, because I don't feel like it's an animals fault for not being able to find a family to adopt it. I don't feel like I'm eloquently posing my argument, but I pretty much said what I was trying to say XD

I'm certainly not trying to be rude, because I do believe they've done some good work with bring animal testing into light, but their treatment of domestic animals just doesn't really have an excuse.

_________________
"We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission." George Orwell

You're not being rude, you're simply stating your side of the debate.

And while it's hard to argue against that, I can only say that I don't entirely believe that those statistic sheets are entirely true because a lot of the facts they have on the website are proven to be false, so the documents could easily have been typed up and be fraud. I just don't see how someone could get a hold of those resources and make such a small website about it and still be able to get a hold of those documents. It just seems skeptical to me, but I can see why it also provides skepticism for PETA too. It is very hard not to be a skeptic of large organizations.

Either way, I can't help but wonder if EA is aware of this and how she would respond to this.

_________________
- Visit my Art Blog! :) -

A small website like this can get a hold of such a document simply by asking. If you download the pdf, you'll see that it was formally requested, and most likely made available through the Freedom of Information Act in the United States. I don't know about the other information on the site, but this document looks legitimate. The primary problem I have with this, aside from the high percentage of euthanization, is the fact that the organization seems to be all talk and no action. All the money behind this non-profit and they can't afford a no kill shelter?
It seems ridiculous, to me, that the people who are killing these animals (without attempting to adopt them out no less) are doing this independently of the organization's knowledge. The only way to know is to ask someone who has worked there.

http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2003/gibson/qtr3/0903.htm

Ewww, yeah stories like that make me feel kind of ill, mostly because I don't know how elaborated that is @____@


But it's true though, that many documents like that are easily obtainable. Especially since it's classified as a "non-profit" organization.



And not to speak ill of Emilie, but PETA just happens to be one of the big name organizations that celebrities go for. By supporting them, it may give her a little boost to her fame.

_________________
"We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission." George Orwell

Thanks sweetness. I haven't read the Interview, however there was an ad FOR Fiend magazine with EA.

I think people need to realise who is behind that website though. 'The Center for Consumer Freedom'. They'll speak out against pretty much any anti-smoking, anti-alcohol, and animal welfare organisations and try to pull them down.

More information about them and their history can be found here:
http://www.consumerdeception.com
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... er_Freedom

Also, a response from PETA to pretty much exactly what CCF said can be found here:

http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/03/w ... thaniz.php
http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/05/p ... euthan.php

This may be true, but it doesn't explain the documented euthanization of a large portion of healthy animals. Also, PETA's grandstanding is not only annoying, but it detracts from the message. My guy friend remembers PETA ads, but only because the women are usually nearly or completely naked. He's no closer to becoming a vegetarian because of it. Not very effective. I've done more to make him understand the message by showing him how easy it is to be vegetarian.

^I completely agree. I think they do the mostly nude advertising for shock value, rather than saying "Hey, wearing fur is unethical because..." or "Here's the facts about being a vegeterian...". Personally I feel that if they're gonna spend that much money on marketing, they should at least make it worth while.



And yes, some of the websites with this information may have a background, but that doesn't explain all the media coverage that occured when all of those euthenized animals were initially found. So I really don't think it's a smear campaign by a small website.

_________________
"We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission." George Orwell

Good to see i'm not the only peta hater here
EDIT:well no hate is a strong word sometime there ok

_________________

cct:flesh tearer